CENZON V ABAD SANTOS 4 counts of violation of BP 22 recommending bail of
GR NO. 164337 | JUNE 27, 2006 P30k for each count.
Chico-Nazario, J.
dpeb | Group 10
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: Vicente S. Cenzon
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: Hon. Salvador Abad Santos
as Acting Presiding Judge, RTC Makati Branch 143, Hon. Asst.
City Prosecutor Andres Marcos in his capacity as Public
Prosecutor of the City Prosecutor’s Office of Makati and
Margarita C. Sia
TOPIC: Bail — Guidelines in fixing amount of bail — 2000
Bailbond Guide amended by DOJ Circ. No. 74 dated 6
November 2001
CASE SUMMARY: On Feb 2000, Sia was charged for violation
of BP 22 and estafa under 315, par 2(d). The City Prosecutor
filed the informations recommending NO BAIL. During
pendency, DOJ Circ. No. 74 dated 6 November 2001, which
specified the amount of bail to be recommended in cases of
estafa under 315, par 2(d), was issued, as a result of which the
prosecutor moved for the amendment of the infos from NO
BAIL to BAIL SET AT P60k for each count. The RTC granted
the Motion, affirmed by the CA.
The SC held that as used in PD 818, reclusion perpetua is not
the prescribed penalty for the offense, but merely describes the
penalty actually imposed on account of the amount of the fraud
involved, which exceeds P22k. Further, the DOJ Circ. No. 74
amended the 2000 Bail Bond Guide. Sia may be granted bail
as a matter of right in accordance with DOJ Dept. Circ. No. 74
dated 6 November 2001. If the amount of fraud is P122k or
over, as in the case at bar, the amount of bail is P60k.
PRECEDENTS:
• 2000 Bail Bond Guide of the DOJ: recommends NO
BAIL for estafa under 315, par. 2(d) if the amount of
the fraud is P32,000.00 or over.
• People vs. Panganiban: As used in PD 818, reclusion
perpetua is not the prescribed penalty for the offense,
but merely describes the penalty actually imposed on
account of the amount of the fraud involved, which
exceeds P22,000.00.
• Lim vs. People: bail is allowed for the crime of estafa
under 315, par. 2(d), as amended by PD 818, in
accordance with the provisions of DOJ Circ. No. 74
dated 6 November 2001.
FACTS:
• Feb 2000: Cenzon filed 4 complaint-affidavits vs Sia
for violation of BP 22 and estafa under Art. 315, par.
2(d) because of the dishonored checks issued by Sia
for having been the subject of a “stop payment order”
and being “drawn against insufficient funds.”
• Aug 2000: The Makati Prosecution Office issued a
Resolution, recommending the dismissal of the
complaint for estafa, and the filing of informations for
• Dec 2001: On appeal by Cenzon, the DOJ reversed
directing the MPO to file 2 infos for estafa under 315,
par. 2(d). The City Prosecutor then filed the 2 infos,
recommending NO BAIL.
• Dec 2001: RTC issued Order directing issuance of
warrant of arrest against Sia.
• Feb 2002: Public prosecutor moved for the
amendment of the infos from NO BAIL to BAIL SET
AT P60k for each count of estafa based on the
strength of the DOJ Circ. No. 74 dated 6 November
2001 which specified the amount of bail to be
recommended in cases of estafa under 315, par. 2(d),
as amended by PD 818. RTC granted Motion.
• Cenzon filed petition for Certiorari with the CA
imputing GADALEJ on the RTC in authorizing the
amendment of the informations to allow private
respondent Sia to post bail. CA affirmed RTC, saying
as the offense charged is not punishable by reclusion
perpetua, she is entitled to bail.
ISSUES:
• WON Sia may be granted bail as a matter of right in
accordance with DOJ Dept. Circ. No. 74 dated 6
November 2001
RULING:
• 1st issue: YES
o Pursuant to the exceptions laid down by Sec
4, Rule 114, it must first be asked WON Sia
is charged with an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua.(no)
o The unequivocal import in PD 818 is that, if
the amount of the fraud exceeds P22k, the
penalty of reclusion temporal is imposed in
its maximum period, adding one year for
each additional P10k, but the total penalty
shall not exceed 30 years, which shall be
termed reclusion perpetua. As used in
Presidential Decree No. 818, reclusion
perpetua is not the prescribed penalty for the
offense. (People v. Panganiban — see
Precedents)
o Moreover, in Lim v. People, we said that the
intendment and provision of DOJ Circ. No.
74 was to benefit the accused. Indeed, it is a
principle of statutory construction that penal
laws are liberally construed in favor of the
accused and strictly against the State.
o Cenzon relies on the 2000 Bail Bond Guide of
the DOJ. Evidently, DOJ Circ. No. 74
amended the 2000 Bail Bond Guide (see
Provisions). Sia may be granted bail as a
matter of right in accordance with DOJ Circ.
No. 74 dated 6 November 2001. If the
 amount of fraud is P122k or over, as in the
case at bar, the amount of bail is P60k.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

The Decision dated 26 February 2004 and Resolution dated 30
June 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72570,
which affirmed the Orders dated 15 February 2002 and 17 June
2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati City,
allowing the amendment of the informations in Crim. Case No.
01-2709-10, from NO BAIL RECOMMENDED to BAIL SET AT
P60,000.00 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

PROVISIONS:
• Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Sec. 4: Bail,
a matter of right; exception.—All persons in custody shall be
admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties,
or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule
[xxx] (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment.
• PD 818, SEC. 1: The penalty of reclusion temporal if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the
penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000
pesos but the total penalty which may be imposed shall in
no case exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in connection
with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion
perpetua.
• DOJ Circ. No. 74 dated 6 November 2001: WHEREAS,
under the 2000 Bail Bond Guide, no bail is recommended for
estafa under Art. 315 2(d), RPC, as amended by PD 818, as
well as for Qualified Theft when the amount of fraud or the
value of the property involved is P32,000.00 or over;
WHEREAS, such policy has already been overtaken and
rendered untenable by the new jurisprudence, particularly
the ruling in People vs. Hernando, 317 SCRA 621 (1999);
WHEREFORE, in estafa under Art. 315 2(d), as amended by
PD 818, and Qualified Theft, the bail to be recommended
shall be governed by the following rules:
o A. FOR ESTAFA (ART. 315, 2(d), RPC, as amended
by PD 818: [xxx]
▪ 3)   Where the amount of fraud is
P32,000.00 or over in which the imposable
penalty is reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua, bail shall be based on reclusion
temporal maximum, pursuant to Par. 2(a)
of the 2000 Bail Bond Guide, multiplied
by P2,000.00, plus an additional of
P2,000.00 for every P10,000.00 in excess
of P22,000.00; Provided, however, that
the total amount of bail shall not exceed
P60,000.00.